I would like to be able to say that all the signs we’ve seen this last month about planning for war with Iran was just that – updating target lists, tweaking schedules and so forth. I’m sure the Pentagon does this all the time to many different plans to defend or attack. It’s why they’re in business and we shouldn’t expect anything less. But normally, such activity does not mean that we are about to carry out those plans.

But I don’t think the French Foreign Minister would say something like this unless the president has given ample warning to our EU allies that something was up:

The world should “prepare for war” with Iran, the French foreign minister has said, significantly escalating tensions over the country’s nuclear programme.

Bernard Kouchner said that while “we must negotiate right to the end” with Iran, if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon it would represent “a real danger for the whole world”.

The world should “prepare for the worst… which is war”, he said.

His comments came after Washington reminded Teheran that “all options were on the table” in confronting its nuclear policy, which many officials in the West believe has the ultimate aim of arming a nuclear warhead, despite Iran’s claim that it is for civilian purposes.

Jacques Chirac blew hot and cold on confronting Iran but ultimately came down exactly where Sarkozy’s government is now; no nukes for the mullahs. Whether that means that the French would support the kind of preemptive strike the Bush Administration appears to be planning, we cannot say.

Preemptive it would have to be. There is absolutely no way of us knowing when or if the Iranians will have overcome the immense technological problems in getting their centrifuge system to produce enriched uranium on an industrial scale. They may be months away as I write this if you believe Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

In a report submitted in late August 2007 to the to the IAEA Council of Governors, IAEA Director-General Muhammad El-Baredei stated that as of August 19, 2007, Iran had 1,968 centrifuges at the Natanz facility, into which UF6 gas had been injected. However, in early September, 2007, Ahmadinejad stated: “When we opened [the UCF] at Isfahan, they [i.e. the West, headed by the U.S.] threatened military action [against us]. But now, we are operating over 3,000 centrifuges, and every week [another] new [centrifuge] system is installed… They have not managed to do anything against [our] united and steadfast nation.”(6) He added, “They thought they could, via each of the sanctions resolutions that they issued, make the Iranian nation withdraw â€“ but after each resolution, the Iranian nation showed additional progress [in its nuclear] program.”(7)

A “new centrifuge system” comprises 164 individual centrifuge machines. I believe Ahmadinejad is wildly exaggerating here when he boasts of having 3,000 machines up and running. And there is zero evidence that Iran has been able to use these centrifuges in a cascade – dumping the UH6 gas into succeeding centrifuges further enriching it. Even if they have partially succeeded in operating a cascade, the likelihood of them being able to use all their centrifuges to continuously enrich enough uranium to make a bomb is extremely slight.

According to experts I respect – arms control professionals who harbor no illusions about the world or our enemies – Iran is still 18-24 months from having a workable bomb. Allow me to commit a horrid blog faux pas and reprint an entire post from Dr. Jeffery Lewis’s Arms Control Wonk blog:

We know that Iran operated 8 cascades between 18 April- 19 August. That is seventeen weeks, 119 days or 2856 hours.

Eight cascades, fed 70 grams of hex per hour, should have consumed 1,600 kg of hex.

Assume the four additional cascades began operating on May 13 (about 14 weeks). The additional four cascades should have consumed another 650 kg, for a grand total of 2,250 kilograms.

Instead, Iran consumed 690 kilograms of hex during that period, for an operating efficiency of about 30 percent.

Thatâ€™s very low.

What is very odd that is that 260 of those kilograms were consumed between 15 April-22 May.

As a result, all twelve cascades consumed only 430 kilograms in the not quite 13 weeks that followed. Twelve cascades, over the course of 89 days or 2136 hours, should consume almost 1800 kg of hex. That means Iranâ€™s centrifuges operated close to one-quarter of their efficiency, a substantial decrease from the relatively continuous operation between 15 April â€“ 22 May (about half their maximum feed).

Are the Iranians husbanding that Chinese hex?

Do the centrifuges with indigenously produced components not work right?

Is Iran holding back for political reasons?

Clearly, Iran is having problems with its nuclear program. It is a third world country without much in the way of educational, scientific, or technical infrastructure and have relied for years on other scientists and technicians – mostly from Pakistan – to make any progress at all on enriching uranium in any great quantities.

Now that the AQ Khan black market network has been smashed, Iran has been pretty much on its own these last few years. The progress they have made has been uneven at best. Every time Ahmadinejad brags about some new milestone in the Iranian program, it has proven to be unrealistic or an outright lie. The Iranian president is apparently not above using the nuclear program for domestic political purposes as evidenced by his remarks, translated here by MEMRI, before a Rev Guard gathering:

On several occasions, Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would continue developing its nuclear program regardless of the sanctions. He noted that the sanctions were having no impact on progress in “the irreversible path of the nuclearization of the Iranian nation”(3) and denied Western reports of a slowdown in Iran’s nuclear enrichment. Ahmadinejad further promised to place Iran’s nuclear technology “at the service of those who are determined to confront the bullying powers and aggressors [i.e., the Western countries, headed by the U.S.]...”(4) In a recent conference of Revolutionary Guards commanders, he also stated that “some violent powers [i.e., the West, headed by the U.S.] are now officially declaring that they want to cooperate with the Iranian nation, and that they acknowledge Iran’s [status] as a regional power. However, they must know that Iran is a global power.”(5)

This, of course, is the monumental problem that Iraq poses. How much stock do we put into his boasts to “place Iran’s” nuclear technology in the hands of terrorists? Can we even afford to ignore a threat like that?

This is Dick Cheney’s “1% Doctrine” come calling in the flesh. If there is a 1% chance that such a boast would ever be realized, shouldn’t we act pre-emptively? It is a question we better start asking ourselves and debating. And if not a 1% chance, where do we draw the line? At what point does it become foolhardy not to take Iranian threats like this seriously?

And even though Ahmadinejad is still just the President and his views do not necessarily reflect those of his boss, Supreme Leader Khamenei, Iran has never seen a president with such a strong independent powerbase inside the country. Despite the fact that Bush may be more popular among the Iranian people than Ahmadinejad (just kidding), he has the unwavering support of some very powerful, very conservative elements in the clergy and especially in the IRG where he was a commander of the Qods force back in the day.

If this weren’t enough of a worry, we also have to be concerned that this is not a rational person we would be dealing with. All Iranian leaders have been walled off from the rest of the world for so long, their worldviews skewed by the Koran and by a self-imposed isolation, that it becomes extraordinarily difficult not to look at statements like this and wonder if Ahmadinejad isn’t an unreasoning religious fanatic:

“[The day] of these aggressors… who are oppressing and controlling the nations, is now coming to an end. Those who [seek to] distract the people with a materialistic philosophy of one kind or another, and who pursue materialism, have brought humanity nothing but despair and deception… The time of the righteous rulers will come, and the most righteous [of rulers, [i.e., the Hidden Imam], will form a government and thereby instate the monotheism of Abraham [throughout the world]. That day is not far away…

“Our enemies naturally feel threatened by the call to [believe in] the Mahdi, for they do not want people to thinks about justice. But our reply to them is that the era of the aggressive [powers] has come to an end. We believe that it is time for the righteous to rule, and for humanity to be properly [re]born out of love, knowledge and spirituality.”(14)

His pronouncements regarding the Mahdi may also be for domestic political consumption. But in this, we have independent observers who have remarked about Ahmadinejad’s apparent seriousness when talking about the 12th Imam:

At the International Seminar on the Doctrine of Mahdism, held in Iran September 6-7, 2006 during the celebrations for the Mahdiâ€™s birthday, and attended by representatives of various countries, Ahmadinejad emphasized the universal and active nature of Mahdism and called on the West to accept it: â€œToday mankind is proceeding towards the truth. Today the happiness of mankind depends on proceeding towards the truth. Today we invite everyone to proceed towards the truth, since [the truth] is the only way… This celebration [of the Mahdiâ€™s birthday] is not only for Muslims but for the entire world. The Mahdi belongs to all of mankind…

â€œThe Hidden Imam has no tangible presence among us, but he is always [here], and we must prepare the ground for his speedy appearance… Some claim that during his occultation, his [nobility] is suspended, but that is not true… On the contrary, we must rush towards him and hasten to prepare the ground for his appearance. [He will not appear] if we sit idly. Mankind must hurry towards the Hidden Imam in order to reach him. A person who [actively hastens the coming of the Imam] is different from one who does not… Today, mankind is proceeding rapidly towards perfection, truth, justice, love, peace and compassion, and this is possible only under the rule of the perfect man [i.e. the Hidden Imam]...â€ [17]

We have no clue whether this is all for show or whether he truly believes in these messianic principles. And if he believes that the appearance of the 12th Imam can be hastened by actively creating the conditions for his return that have been prophesied, what does that mean for policy makers here and elsewhere in the west? At the very least, this possible obsession with the 12th Imam could be coloring Ahmadinejad’s everyday decision making process:

Ahmadinejad went on to explain: “At some meetings, I told these friends that I was an engineer, and that I had analyzed the problems and presented proof, [and thus] I told them that the enemies do not have the courage to launch a war against us. Some doubted my words, but I presented them with two [pieces of] evidence. First, I told them, I am an engineer, I am deliberate, I make tables and write and examine hypotheses for hours. I present proof and put together plans based on it, and that is how I proceed. They [the U.S.] cannot pose a problem to Iran. They are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have problems there, and lack the ability [to act against Iran]. As further proof, I told them that I believe in the word of God. God said that those who act properly will triumph. Iran’s Leader [Ali Khamenei] and the Iranian nation are steadfast in, attentive to, and agree with the word of God…” (9)

For those who believe that Ahmadinejad would never attack the United States or the west because he knows the consequences, it might help to reread the above paragraph. This is classic miscalculation of an opponent – the same reason that Saddam continued to fire on our aircraft and boast about driving us from Iraqi soil. He never thought we’d go all the way and overthrow him. He was wrong.

But is Ahmadinejad serious about his belief that the west will do nothing regardless of what they do with their nuclear program? Apparently so. On such miscalculations are wars made certain.

To sum up, we have an Administration determined to deal with Iran, arrogantly believing that no matter who their successor is, they won’t have the guts to do what is necessary to safeguard the country. Given the uselessness of diplomatic moves to date, it is clear to me that there is a clock – probably on Dick Cheney’s desk – that is ticking down toward zero hour.

And in Tehran, we have a messianic leader who dismisses any threat from the west and wants to put those who advocate rapprochement with the democracies in jail:

On another occasion, Ahmadinejad harshly condemned senior Iranian officials who had in recent months called for compromise with the West: “With regard to obtaining nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, unreliable individuals have spoken of compromising… No one would believe it if I mentioned the names of these individuals, who in several meetings spoke of the need for compromise, enumerating the enemy’s strong points, and [raising the possibility that the West could launch] an all-out war… We have experienced days when we were pressured from a hundred different directions from within [Iran] to withdraw [and halt uranium enrichment]... But I said that I was willing to guarantee them that it was impossible for [the U.S.] to launch a war against us…”(8)

A man who believes in the imminent return of the messiah and who thinks it is “impossible for the US to launch a war” against Iran?

This, along with the tunnel vision among our own leaders is a recipe for disaster.

Can Condi or Gates stop it? I think the answer is a qualified yes if they can engage the rest of the world in applying serious sanctions that dig deep into the Iranian economy. The faltering economy could bring to the fore in Iran the slightly less radical and more practical leadership of the faction led by former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who was recently elected head of the powerful Assembly of Experts and is probably dead set against war with the United States – for now. This is the faction that Ahmadinejad was talking about in the quote immediately above. They don’t want war with the US on very practical grounds. Unlike their engineer president, they have no illusions of what a couple of hundred B-51, B-2, and F-117 bombers can do to Iran not to mention another 300 or so carrier based aircraft in the Gulf. They are rightly terrified that their rickety economy could be destroyed if the US were to seriously go after Iranian infrastructure.

Can the “no war” factions in each government win the day? In order to avoid conflict, the Iranians are going to have to give substantially on their nuclear program – stringent inspections with strict international oversight on its facilities – while the United States will probably have to give some security assurances to the Iranians that we won’t agitate for regime change. You and I both know such assurances will not be forthcoming nor will the Iranians agree to such demands.

But there is still time to maneuver diplomatically. Not much time – perhaps less than a year – before Iran will probably be capable of slowly enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. Whether anything can be done to avoid war in the interim is anyone’s guess.

UPDATE

I should have included this profile of IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei in today’s NY Times if only because reading it – and more importantly, reading this post from Allah - shows the problems with getting the UN to do its job and help avoid war between the west and Iran.

Read especially Allah’s links to his posts from earlier this year when ElBaradei was shamelessly shilling for the mullahs, kowtowing to their wishes to banish an inspector who was doing too good of a job among other things. ElBaradei is the gatekeeper at the UN and would probably be the difference between war and peace in the long run.

Given his historic reluctance for confrontation, it is likely we will get the former.

It’s always been just a matter of time. Perhaps (and I hope so) before they get nukes, if not then, then after they use them.

And your hope that some form of sanction can be brought to bear on Iran that will cause them to cry uncle is nice and guaranteed to score some points on the left, but is not based in reality. Even if such sanctions were put in place, you think a bad economy is going to cause the Mad Mullahs to give up power? How’s that gone so far with Cuba? A p***-poor economy has caused Mugabe to lighten up. Dictators don’t give up power without a fight.

And why would we agree to not push for regime change? Why allow a regime that is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of American deaths to stay in power?

Face it Rick, Iran is determined to keep supporting terrorists who kill Americans, they are determined to get nukes, they won’t be deterred by any form of sanction (not that any such sanction exists, nor is there any chance the world community would ever agree to impose such), and they won’t be deterred from using the nukes once they get them (after all of our bluster about not letting them have nukes, why should anyone fear our threats about retaliation?).

The only thing that will keep Iran from getting and using nukes and from continuing to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is military action against their facilities and military infrastructure. And, while I’ve said it before, for the benefit of those who want to advance the same old tired argument, we don’t have to get everything, nor do we have to invade and occupy the country. Precision strikes and tactical insertions ought to be more than sufficient to hamper their production in the same way that idling GM doesn’t require taking out every factory; taking out tire factories and transmission plants will do just fine (a fact the UAW recognizes quite well, as evidenced by their selective strikes).

Mind you, I’m a bit of a left-handed right-winger; but the problem most Westerners have with Muslims is that our politicos try to tell the truth in diplomatic situations and lie to the folks back home. Muslims, on the other hand, gain merit—essentially points toward heaven—for lying to non-Muslims.

If he told other Muslims he wants to give nukes to terrorists, that’s not a position to bet against…

I sure don’t like the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Amnesty plans or the ongoing efforts to pardon the 12-20 million tax-fraud felons and reward them for breaking our laws; but even certain Democrats running for the Presidency have spoken of directly confronting the mullocracy…

5

Arthur Said:
7:30 pm

> But there is still time to maneuver diplomatically. Not much time â€“ perhaps less than a year â€“ before Iran will probably be capable of slowly enriching uranium to weapons grade levels

But we HAVE been maneuvering diplomatically. So far, it hasn’t worked. Let’s say you were the prez. When would YOU push the button?

Arthur: two years ago. Two years ago it would have been a lot easier to get the job done. Their facilities wouldn’t have been as scattered, nor as well-protected. And had we smacked them two years ago, it’s likely that a whole bunch of American soldiers would still be alive, instead of having been killed by the Iranian backed terrorists in Iraq… ah, but such are the prices we pay for going slow….

7

muirgeo Said:
10:27 pm

You guys are nuts. You have no clue of history and you’ve bought into the propaganda once again. Sheep…dangerous dangerous sheep.

you guys (and girls) are right; Iran is a threat/may be becoming a threat/ smells funny. I guess we have to invade. Heck, if we get three wars going we’ve got to win at least one of them, right?
Of course, N. Korea does have the nukes, and he is definitely crazy enough to use them. So I guess we go there too. And if Pakistan gets any more unstable, well, what’s one more war, right?
After all, the American military is the greatest ever, and can fight an unlimited number of conflicts forever with nothing more than a ball of twine and some duct tape.

Now you’re attempting to lecture people on history? You’re a comical little dweeb, although too bad for you it’s unintended.

Khomeini was on a collision course with Persian/Iranian constitutional monarchy, period. The way things actually played out was just one variation on a script which would have culminated in the same final act.

10

Drongo Said:
8:00 am

Since I have no influence on whether a war with Iran will happen or not, only opinions, can I just ask a question on a point of etiquette?

When, in a couple of years, the glorious Iranian advanture has gone horribly, completely, unrecoverably wrong, following in the footsteps of Iraq, will it be considered rude to say “I told you so”?

11

gregdn Said:
8:20 am

I’m curious as to what authority Bush could use to attack Iran. Clinton and other presidents have done it as well, but it would be nice if just once, we could actually get a declaration of war first.
Having said that, better be prepared to invade and occupy ‘cause just bombing them will cause them to rally ‘round the flag. And how do we get back the dozen or so pilots they’re bound to capture?

12

Drongo Said:
8:52 am

“Iâ€™m curious as to what authority Bush could use to attack Iran.”

There are four basic alternatives;

1) If he does go he can use the AUMF originally intended to authorise the Iraq campaign. Last year a resolution to put in place a congressional amendment that would say something like “You can’t use the 2002 AUMF as authority to attack Iran” was soundly defeated. The clear implication of this is that you can use the 2002 AUMF as authority to attack Iran.

2) You simply say that the attack on Iran is a part of the war in Iraq, Iran being the cause of all bad things in Iraq. The propeganda for this case is clearly being spread far and wide. To witness the conscious nature of the propeganda, observer the time given to weapons allegedly from Iran with the time given to weapons allegedly from Saudia Arabia.

3) You actually ask congress for authorisation, and probably get it. Let’s be honest, the Dems want war with Iran as much as the Repubs. None of the major frontrunners from either party have given any hint that they are not right behind such action.

4) You just do it and damn the consequences.

I’m going with taking the Lieberman led Senate resolution condemning Iran’s meddling in Iraq as fulfilling (3), Public consumption and support from (2), legalistic arguments from (1), but ultimately it all comes down to (4).

I revolve between “They can’t be that stupid can they?” and “Yes, they can, look what they did in Iraq”

I’m hoping that betting on the Bush Administration’s good sense and understanding of foreign affairs is a good choice.

My last trip to Iran was in 1975 when I delivered my third F4E fresh from the factory. At the time, Phantoms were on air defense and nuclear alert in the Far East and in Western Europe. Iran also has KC-135 tankers. If they get a bomb, one of their 60 F4s could deliver it to any target in Europe. A SCUD could easily hit one of our bases Iraq.

Is Ahmadinejad bluffing? Can we afford to gamble that he is? If we do, will the Israelis follow suit? If we strike, will we be able to hit all the necessary sites? Do we even know where they are? What would the IRG do in response? Hezbollah?

Let’s hope the diplomats can solve this thing before it gets seriously out of hand.

15

Drongo Said:
9:07 am

“Reuters finally does something interesting, and nobody notices.”

Yes, it is remarkable how quiet places become AFTER the ethnic cleansing is finished.

16

Drongo Said:
9:10 am

“Letâ€™s hope the diplomats can solve this thing before it gets seriously out of hand.”

Is it appropriate to mention that no-one has presented any credible (or even incredible) evidence at all to show that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?

Or is that just one of those irrelevant observations?

Sorry, I’ll go back in my box now.

17

Rick Moran Said:
9:16 am

Drongo:

Two things point to Iran desiring a nuclear weapon.

1. Until 2002, Iran received extensive help from the AQ Khan black market network of nuclear hardware and expertise. Khan has never – repeat never – assisted a clandestine nuclear program where a bomb was not the endgame.

2. The continuing efforts by Iran to conceal parts of their nuclear program. The IAEA is allowed now in Nantanz but the heavy water reactor (designed to produce plutonium) is still off limits as are some other facilities where we know there is activity related to the nuclear program.

Most experts – including those who are opposed to war with Iran – feel Iran is at the very least, developing the capability to build a bomb which would include a workable bomb design and delivery vehicle (there is evidence they are modifying the warhead on the Shahab 2 missile).

I’m not staying that we shoul drop bombs today. However, negotiations will be hard because many countries won’t along.

Where are these sites? We don’t know for sure.

It’s a tough call but that’s why we elect presidents. We elect them to make these tough calls and this is one of the toughest since Truman dropped the bomb.

19

Drongo Said:
9:49 am

“Most experts â€“ including those who are opposed to war with Iran â€“ feel Iran is at the very least, developing the capability to build a bomb which would include a workable bomb design and delivery vehicle (there is evidence they are modifying the warhead on the Shahab 2 missile).”

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they are working to achieve threashold status, whereby a bomb could be constructed in, say, 6 months. That is a pretty common goal amongst third rate powers and can be done within NPT limitations.

There is a long way between developing threashold status and building the bombs though. One is a means of protecting your long term interests, the other is a suicidal act. To build a bomb, you have to test it (as the NKs found in their recent fizzle) and if the Iranians ever tested a bomb they would be obliterated. I state this simply as a matter of cold fact. If the US didn’t do it the Israelis certainly would and if they had to they would go nuclear to achieve it.

I note that you do not present evidence, just supposition. Supposition is simply not sufficient to justify this sort of slaughter. Look where it got us last time.

Still, neither you nor I have any say in this matter so it doesn’t really make any difference what we suppose, does it?

There is no definitive evidence, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Iran’s previous deceptions, previous public statements by its leaders that it needed a nuclear weapon, the economic inviability of its claimed nuclear power generation, experiments and activities that are wholly weapons-related, etc. etc. etc.

Now, a working theory I’ve had for some time now is that Iran does not desire a weapon directly but instead wants the capability to weaponize quickly if need be. This would provide them a measure of deterrence through ambiguity (do they really have one or don’t they?)while keeping within the letter, if not the spirit, of the NPT.

Personally, I would be happy if the current issues with the IAEA were resolved and “closed” followed by Iran signing and ratifying the additional protocol – something it so far has refused to do.

Iran’s game is currently playing for time while it progresses technically, it’s goal being to master enrichment so that the EU3 goals are overtaken by reality. See exhibit A, a statement from Iran’s nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani in 2004:

As for the question of what we can do now that they all disagree with our having the fuel cycle, I submit to you that we require an opportunity, time to be able to act on our capability in this area. That is, if one day we are able to complete the fuel cycle and the world sees that it has no choice, that we do possess the technology, then the situation will be different. The world did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle, and the world started to work with them. Our problem is that we have not achieved either one, but we are standing at the threshold. As for building the atomic bomb, we never wanted to move in that direction and we have not yet completely developed our fuel cycle capability. This also happens to be our main problem.

21

Bill Arnold Said:
12:51 pm

To build a bomb, you have to test it (as the NKs found in their recent fizzle) and if the Iranians ever tested a bomb they would be obliterated.
A simple (non-implosion) U235 device doesn’t need testing. We (US) tested ours over Hiroshima. (various source – the Wikipedia article is quite readable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design)
This type of device requires more uranium and is probably too big for a IRBM. But the potential ability of a proliferator to build a no-testing-needed device is always part of the calculation.

22

arch Said:
1:02 pm

Drongo said:

“Is it appropriate to mention that no-one has presented any credible (or even incredible) evidence at all to show that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?”

Whether appropriate or relevant, the statement is clearly false. According to the IAEA, Iran’s uranium enrichment is moving far beyond the 4% required to fuel a reactor and closer to the 84% weapons grade. Also, they have acquired machining capabilities to build hemispheres rather than rods.

Their president says they intend to be a “World Power” in the same paragraph he mentions enrichment. If his nuclear intentions were peaceful, why expel the UN inspectors and potentially suffer sanctions? Monthly, Iran burns off more energy in natural gas than a modern reactor generates in a year.

They are building a bomb and the Twelvers don’t care about the consequences.

23

busboy33 Said:
1:23 pm

You all may be missing what I think is Drongo’s point.

We’ve got circumstantial evidence of attempting to develop WMDs, and a leader who is known to be hositle to our interests and would no doubt like a WMD.

The last time we had this scenario, and went with the “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. It has not played out so well.

Well, you do learn something new everyday. The first test was before Hiroshima, but was of the Nagasaki bomb type.

“According to the IAEA, Iranâ€™s uranium enrichment is moving far beyond the 4% required to fuel a reactor and closer to the 84% weapons grade.”

Have they? Do you have a cite for that fact?

“They are building a bomb and the Twelvers donâ€™t care about the consequences.”

Can you name me the last country (or leadership of a country) that committed suicide on this scale? Not one which launched a war that resulted in their destruction because they lost it, but one that did something knowing that it would lead to their guaranteed deaths within hours.

The old “But they are madmen” argument is never convincing. People so rarely are. They can be monsters, yes, but rarely mad.

25

Bill Arnold Said:
5:02 pm

Have they? Do you have a cite for that fact?
I can’t address the levels-of-enrichment question, but armscontrolwonk.com is a good, intellectually honest source of information, and is often raw and challenging reading for the non-specialist. Read the comments as well – there are some commenters who are apparently rather knowledgeable. It’s the must-read blog whenever articles about (nuclear) arms control issues appear in the popular press.

busboy: the invasion of Iraq worked out fine. Our troops went in, faced minimal resistance and found out pretty quick that there were (at least not then) no WMDs. it was the sticking around that hasn’t worked out so well.

As for Iran, I would agree military action wasn’t necessary if Iran was to open all of their facilities to inspection without any of the games as Hussein played in Iraq. Let us in, show us we have nothing to fear and we’ll stop making threats. But in the absence of evidence that we have nothing to fear, we’re justified in taking their comments and actions at face value and responding to the threat.

27

busboy33 Said:
8:53 pm

@Steve:
True enough, the “war” was great, and a real morale booster.

My problem with the position is it feeds itself. If you are Iran, you have a country (us) that we know for sure has WMDs, is openly hostile to Iran (repeated in speeches by our leaders), and won’t confirm or deny whether they are planning to attack. By the “justified in taking their comments and actions at face value and responding to the threat” posiition, Iran should attack us. After all, they gotta do what they gotta do.
There is a fine line between “pre-emptive self defense” and “are you giving me the stinkeye?!?” Certainly, if there is going to be a fight, hit first, hit hard, and end it before it begins. But, given this Administration’s demonstrated propensity to attack imaginary threats, personally I think an extra dose of caution would be prudent, especially considering how badly they are at running a fight thru to the endgame.

28

Drongo Said:
2:07 am

“busboy: the invasion of Iraq worked out fine.”

But this is just the old “We never lost a battle in Vietnam” line. If you had smashed up Iraq and left then you would be looking at a very similar strategic situation, where Iran exercised great control over Southern Iraq, the Kurds split away and Saudi Arabia backed the Sunnis.

To suggest that the war went well because you smashed up an innocent country is simply shocking.

“Let us in, show us we have nothing to fear and weâ€™ll stop making threats. But in the absence of evidence that we have nothing to fear, weâ€™re justified in taking their comments and actions at face value and responding to the threat.”

There is a reason why we require the prosecution in a court case to prove guilt rather than innocence. Look at what happened with Iraq. We said “Show us your WMDs” they said “We don’t have any”. We said “Document everything” they send us a complete (as best they could) list of everything that they had. We replied “Liar Liar, pants on fire” and made stuff up about aluminium tubes, yellowcake and mobile chem labs. Ultimately, it is impossible to prove innocence. Iran could open their whole country up to random unannounced inspections and a weapons inspector still couldn’t guarantee that there was no nuke program. The best that they could say is “We have found no evidence of a weapons program” which is exactly what they have said.

The fact is that as far as Iran is concerned, given the evidence of Saddam, there is nothing that they can do to alter the US’s course. If the US wants war then they will have one, if they do not then they will not, and it makes no difference what Iran does.

And if you are honest, you know that this is the case as well. As with Iraq, so with Iran, the reasons for war are not the stated ones, they are moves on the board of the Great Game.

International relations is not a court case. You will rarely if ever have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” It will always be about circumstantial evidence and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Your apparent philosophy is what got us September 11.

Your description of Iraq as “innocent” also suggests a certain naivete. No one who has examined the evidence, including the Senate Committee on Pre-War intelligence and the Iraq Survey Group—believes Iraq was not developing WMD. The existence of the programs, if not the weapons themselves (which is debatable given the ISG’s criteria) has been confirmed. The invasion of Iraq was perfectly justified, if imperfectly executed. It is immoral and irresponsible for the government of the US to allow its people, protection of whom is its reason for existence, to be held hostage to protect the people of Iraq.

And if you believe Saddam did not have WMD, you better look into Syria. There seem to be some interesting things going on there with WMD right now, the technology for which Syria did not have a few short years ago. Wonder where they got it from.

30

Drongo Said:
3:15 pm

“You will rarely if ever have â€œproof beyond a reasonable doubt.â€”

Well, I am afraid that I require it before I could support the killing of, at least, thousands, and the serious risk of kicking off world war 3.

But that’s just me I suppose. I just regard these people’s lives as important as those of my countrymen.

“No one who has examined the evidence, including the Senate Committee on Pre-War intelligence and the Iraq Survey Groupâ€”believes Iraq was not developing WMD. The existence of the programs, if not the weapons themselves (which is debatable given the ISGâ€™s criteria) has been confirmed.”

Don’t they? Can you provide a cite for this?

“It is immoral and irresponsible for the government of the US to allow its people, protection of whom is its reason for existence, to be held hostage to protect the people of Iraq.”

Two things;

1) Isn’t that the exact situation that you are in now?

2) Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam was a direct threat to the US? Seriously?

“There seem to be some interesting things going on there with WMD right now, the technology for which Syria did not have a few short years ago. Wonder where they got it from.”

Same place most people do. Old chemistry books in the case of Mustard gas.

“Well, I am afraid that I require it before I could support the killing of, at least, thousands, and the serious risk of kicking off world war 3.”

That is a prescription for national suicide.

“But thatâ€™s just me I suppose. I just regard these peopleâ€™s lives as important as those of my countrymen.”

Hopefully, it is just you. That’s not the job of the US government, nor of any government. The first priority of any government under the social contract is to protect its own people from the predations of others. The job of the US government is to protect the US people, not the Iraqi people, not anyone else except to the extent it serves to protect the US. Because no one else has the legal or moral authority, or the ability, or the inclination to do it. If the US government does not do it, no one else will do it, and we will be unprotected.

If they do determine that the Iraqi people are just as valuable to them as the American people, then they have committed a betrayal of the American people of the first magnitude and and deserve to be removed from power.

Of the blogs that I recall mentioning it, Captain’s Quarters was the easiest place to search, easier than my own blog, where I discussed the matter some time ago.

â€œIt is immoral and irresponsible for the government of the US to allow its people, protection of whom is its reason for existence, to be held hostage to protect the people of Iraq.â€

Two things;

1) Isnâ€™t that the exact situation that you are in now?”

No. The American people are safer because Saddam Hussein is gone, as are the Iraqi people. We are no longer threatened by him. He can no longer deter us from action by using his people as de facto hostages or human shields for PR purposes.

And please be intellectually consistent, How can we be “protecting the Iraqi people” when we are allegedly “terrorizing” or “killing” them? I hear a Vietnam reference coming.

“2) Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam was a direct threat to the US? Seriously?”

Um, yeah. Lessee, Saddam had (or was believed to have) WMD and to be continuing to develop them, in violation of the 1991 armistice. He had shown a willingness to use WMD before. He had said he wanted to attack the US. He had connections to every major terrorist group in the Middle East, including al Qaida. And al Qaida had shown on September 11 that they could be an effective delivery vehicle for such munitions.

It would have been the perfect scenario for Saddam. Al Qaida delivers a devastating attack with his WMD on the US, but he keeps plausible deniability, and people like you would oppose any retaliation because you did not have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of Saddam’s part in it and/or you cared more about Iraqi civilians than American civilians.

“â€œThere seem to be some interesting things going on there with WMD right now, the technology for which Syria did not have a few short years ago. Wonder where they got it from.â€

Same place most people do. Old chemistry books in the case of Mustard gas.”

And the appearance of chemical weapons (such as mustard gas and nerve agents, exactly what was used by Saddam) in Syria so soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein is, in your opinion, just a coincidence?

drango: your analogizing to a court case is another reason I hope no one you vote for ever becomes President. Courts don’t prevent attacks, they merely serve to assign blame for attacks and crimes that have taken place and the damage inflicted. It is not enough to after the people who attack us, I want to go after the people before they attack us.

[...] The Watcher’s Council has announced its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post was Right Wing Nut House’s post, â€œIs War With Iran Now Just a Matter of Time?â€. Second place honors went to Bookworm Room’s “Freedom, But From What?”. [...]

And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Is War With Iran Now Just a Matter of Time? by Right Wing Nut House, and Dead Eyes by Acute Politics. There was actually a tie…...

One – faulty initial premise.
Two – no acknowledgement of the consequences if the United States attacked.
Three – overall does not contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion of serious policy issues.

Sounds like the right wing nut house all right.

A 2005 US National Intelligence Estimate stated that IRAN was ten years from making a nuclear weapon
In 2006 Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.
In 2006 two former CIA officials asserted that fear of a US attack is a significant factor in Iranian nuclear weapons policy.
The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate is said to state that Iran will not be able to build a nuclear bomb until at least 2010 and possibly 2015.

37

Rick Moran Said:
10:01 am

One: Are you saying that we are not going to war with Iran? Or that we are? How can a question be a “faulty initial premise when there is no premise to be faulty?

Two: I have endlessly covered the consequences of a US attack on Iran – endlessly.

three: I raise every single “serious policy issue” being discussed and summarize them.

And I would listen to arms control experts like Jeffrey Lewis and the Mossad before I would listen to the CIA who has been wrong about when every single nation who has the bomb today would get it.

btw – the year 2010 is just about right at their current rate of production. And if you bothered reading anything I write you’d know I oppose going to war with Iran.

But you’re too busy trying to sound clever to make any kind of a valid point about me or my site.

[...] you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per theinstructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process. Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-councilhere is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were votedon. [...]

I’ve never seen this before, but there was a tie in the Nouncil voting this time… and the Watcher in the Weirds broke the tie by giving his extra point to the one he liked best. Which would be perfectly…...